|
|
|
- Preaching the Living WORD through
the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4;:2 - |
|
|
ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF
SANCTIFICATION 3/27/13 Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert VII. ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF SANCTIFICATION A. Introduction 1. Let me first say that this is not an
attack on any individual denomination or group. Rather it is a sincere
attempt to show distinctions between the biblical view of sanctification and
those which delineate in whole or in part. 2. In addition, any investigation into the
doctrine of sanctification will quickly lead to a conclusion that there are
various agreements as well as divergences among different denominations.
Therefore, it seemed best to list the major distinctions according to
denomination or movement. 3. All of them involve the idea of “sinless
perfection” or “entire sanctification” but with different nuances. a) Speaking generally, this doctrine is to
the effect that religious perfection is attainable in the present life. It is
taught in various forms by Pelagians, Roman Catholics or Semipelagians,
Arminians, Wesleyans, such mystical sects as the Labadists, the Quietists,
the Quakers,[Holiness Pentecostals, Keswick teaching,]and others, some of the
Oberlin theologians, such as Mahan and Finney, and Ritschl. These all agree in maintaining that it is
possible for believers in this life to attain to a state in which they comply
with the requirements of the law under which they now live, or under that law
as it was adjusted to their present ability and needs, and, consequently, to
be free from sin. (Louis
Berkhof, Systematic Theology [with my insertion]) 4. Accordingly, “sinless perfection” does
not necessarily mean that that a believer will be perfect in full conformity
to the holy Law of God. In most cases, “sinless perfection” means conformity
to some law, such as the “law of Christ.” In addition, it does not
necessarily mean perfection from sin, as we know it, but from sin redefined. 5. Furthermore, how and at what time one arrives
at “entire sanctification” differs from group to group. Finally, an
exhaustive study (which this will not be) of each of these views would
require the explanation of “entire sanctification” as it relates to
their particular beliefs concerning
Original Sin, the Fall of Man, Prevenient Grace, the Holy Spirit, and Eternal
Security. B. Wesleyan View 1. This view has been promoted by John
Wesley, his first and foremost of his classical defenders, his
friend and confidant John Fletcher, and his followers.
2. While Wesley taught that a believer is
capable of falling into sin, they need not do so. He also maintained that a
Christian can and will mature. 3. However, what separated Wesley from
biblical teaching was his belief that the war and inward rebellion from sin
within a believer could cease entirely and instantaneously. a) There was a remedy for the sickness of
systemic sinfulness, namely, entire
sanctification-a personal, definitive work of God’s sanctifying grace
by which the war within oneself might
cease and the heart be fully released from rebellion into wholehearted love for God and others. (Five Views on
Sanctification, Wesleyan Perspective, Melvin E. Dieter) b) In all of them alike the sanctification
which comes on this [second] act of faith, comes immediately on believing,
and all at once, and in all of them alike this sanctification, thus received,
is complete sanctification. (B.B.
Warfield) 4. Though such entire sanctification could
take place at the moment of salvation, typically it takes place during a
crisis of inability in the believer’s life. a) However, the scriptural exhortation to
believers to pursue perfection in
love, as well as the struggles they commonly have with a divided heart, indicates that believers typically
appropriate purity of love in a distinct crisis of faith sometime subsequent to justification. (Five Views on
Sanctification Summary, Mike Sullivan) 5. Viewing perfectionism, leads the normal
believer to see it in association with God’s holiness, God’s holy Law, and
entire written revelation. Here in-lies the problem. Perfectionism, betrayed
by honest experience, necessitates the adjustment of which law it will
conform itself. a) In their conception of the law which
believers are now obliged to fulfill, the Arminians, including the Wesleyans,
differing from all the rest in holding that this is not the original moral
law, but the gospel requirements or the new law of faith and evangelical
obedience. The Roman Catholics and the Oberlin theologians maintain that it
is the original law, but admit that the demands of this law are adjusted to
man´s deteriorated powers and to his present ability. And Ritschl discards
the whole idea that man is subject to an externally imposed law. He defends
the autonomy of moral conduct, and holds that we are under no law but such as
is evolved out of our own moral disposition in the course of activities for
the fulfillment of our vocation. (Louis Berkhof,
Systematic Theology) b) We can fulfill God's law of love in this
life, despite all the failings and imperfections of the world. This is what
Wesley calls the "optimism of grace. (Five Views on Sanctification Summary,
Mike Sullivan) 6. In the same manner, the definition of sin
must be adjusted in order to conform to a lesser standard. a) It is very significant that all the
leading perfectionist theories (with the sole exception of the Pelagian,
which denies the inherent corruption of man) deem it necessary to lower the
standard of perfection and do not hold man responsible for a great deal that
is undoubtedly demanded by the original moral law. And it is equally
significant that they feel the necessity of externalizing the idea of sin,
when they claim that only conscious wrongdoing can be so considered, and
refuse to recognize as sin a great deal that is represented as such in
Scripture. (Louis
Berkhof, Systematic Theology) b) In all of them alike, however, it is
added, that this complete sanctification does not bring freedom from all sin;
but only, say, freedom from sinning; or only freedom from conscious sinning;
or from the commission of “known sins.” (B.B. Warfield) c) Ultimately all perfectionists are forced
to devise down-scaled definitions of sin, holiness, and perfection that can
accommodate the imperfections of human carnality. (MacArthur, Vanishing Conscience) 7. The question begs to be asked, “Where
does sin and temptation come from which the believer must wage war?
Perfectionism does not acknowledge sin and temptation from within, but from
an external source of Satan and the world. a) But what is the source of the temptation’
Dieter and Wesley imply that the temptation to sin doesn't come from within
but rather from the fallen world around us: “After declaring freedom from the
dominion and inner presence of sin in the life of the Spirit-filled Christian
(Rom. 8:1-17), he (Wesley) nevertheless acknowledges that we still live in a
fallen, sinful world..."[18] 8. Sin and temptation are reduced to slip-ups, misdemeanors, or
venial sins. a) Most who
hold this view believe “entire sanctification” is obtained all at once
through a second work of grace. The believer is thereby elevated to a
position of “perfect” holiness in which he or she no longer sins—at least not
consciously or intentionally. Ordinary failings are called “mistakes,” or
“temptations,” not sins. Only deliberate, premeditated, and grotesque acts
are labeled sin. Sin is thus externalized. Evils clearly named as sin in
Scripture are reduced to misdemeanors. And conscience must be dampened in
order to cope with the doctrine.
(MacArthur, Vanishing Conscience) b) Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification
leans heavily on his vague definition of sin. He believed that a Christian
who has experienced entire sanctification enjoys freedom from deliberate
sins.[23] Slip-ups in behavior can
still occur, but these result from living in a fallen world. Wesley called
these lapses "mistakes."[24]
He said, "because we are imperfect persons in an imperfect world,
perfection 'in love' is consistent with a 'thousand mistakes.' But limited as
we are by our own and the world's imperfections, we may still enjoy a
relationship in which, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can fulfill
the great and final commandment of loving God with our whole heart..."[25] (Five Views on
Sanctification Summary, Mike Sullivan) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
